Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
I always find it interesting that while Parky and his compadres ridicule the idea of [Name removed] and [Name removed] becoming unwittingly embroiled in a murder of their friend’s making they see nothing wrong with believing that Luke, a fourteen year old boy with no previous criminal experience, was able to commit a horrific murder, a murder where even the police said that the perpetrator would be covered in blood, without a spec of unexplained DNA on him. Not only that but managed to change his clothes, if the eyewitnesses were to be believed, at least three times in the space of around 20 minutes without anyone seeing him return to the house where he lived to retrieve clean clothes or get cleaned up. That the three witnesses who were with him when he found the body didn’t no, really, honestly didn't change their story, even though it’s obvious that they did. Astonishing!

And yet after all the subterfuge used to create an alibi he lets it slip that his mother had a fire that night. Shoddy!
So is that what you believe happened?  The two moped boys accidentally witnessed a murder taking place and decided to cover up for a friend?  Why could that person not have been Mitchell?  One regularly sold drugs to him, no?  Why come forward to the police at all in any case?  And - in court didn’t the forensics expert testify under oath that the murderer would not necessarily have been covered in blood?  But you believe that this conspiracy also includes members of Jodi’s family, so at least 5 people involved, including the mother of the victim?  That really does stretch credulity yes, I can see why that idea is ridiculed.
2
They obviously were involved, at least to the extent they knew something, hence unable to remember anything in Court. Disposing of moped - equally suspicious. One of them had a lot of his hair cut off before he came forward, apparently because he didn't want to be mistaken for the killer. How did he know the killer didn't have short or shaved hair too?

As for the bleach, well that had it's desired effect because the dogs were unable to find where there was any blood. So as there was no blood hardly at the murder scene, it was obviously somewhere else and the body had to have been moved. The result of the bleaching was that no possible other location where the murder may have happened was ever identified. If the actual murder location had been identified, numerous pieces of evidence may have been found that won't be found where there was no struggle because the person was already dead. That could be why the body was moved.

That whole area should have been cordoned off immediately for forensic examination. Instead there was people trampling all over it all night for 8 hours and they even moved the victim's body and left her uncovered in the rain all night. Disgusting behaviour as well as being completely inept to a level that's hard to imagine. Ineptitude that continued by failing to investigate other possible suspects properly.
If they didn’t commit the murder then why the need to dispose of the moped?  Did he say he had his haircut so as to not be mistaken for the killer and if so where was this reported?  Where precisely was this bleach found? How far from the site of the body was this?  Why is it not possible that Mitchell introduced bleach to the scene?  How did the murderer covered in blood leave the scene?  Previously it was suggested on a moped - how would that have been physically possible when that would have meant at least 3 people leaving the scene on a clapped out old banger?
3
Look At How Easily Swinder Seema Misra Lies During Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
👇🏼
https://youtu.be/9bET63FUNa0?si=6FidrM9vZ0ckjP-a
4
What Trickery Was Lawyer Jason Beer Using With Seema Misra During Post Office Horizon Inquiry?
👇🏼
https://youtu.be/4TJ3HABVsGc?si=9QzdpgEyZ7umf7UZ
5
if they weren’t involved then a) why would they need to dispose of the moped in a hurry and b) that still leaves other(s) to leave the scene of the crime on foot allegedly covered in blood.  As for the bleach I don’t get why anyone would risk going back to the scene AFTER the body had been discovered to leave more potentially incriminating evidence to disguise blood that would have been there - to what end?  The police knew she was murdered there and that her blood would be in or around the area where she was found so - why use bleach on it?

They obviously were involved, at least to the extent they knew something, hence unable to remember anything in Court. Disposing of moped - equally suspicious. One of them had a lot of his hair cut off before he came forward, apparently because he didn't want to be mistaken for the killer. How did he know the killer didn't have short or shaved hair too?

As for the bleach, well that had it's desired effect because the dogs were unable to find where there was any blood. So as there was no blood hardly at the murder scene, it was obviously somewhere else and the body had to have been moved. The result of the bleaching was that no possible other location where the murder may have happened was ever identified. If the actual murder location had been identified, numerous pieces of evidence may have been found that won't be found where there was no struggle because the person was already dead. That could be why the body was moved.

That whole area should have been cordoned off immediately for forensic examination. Instead there was people trampling all over it all night for 8 hours and they even moved the victim's body and left her uncovered in the rain all night. Disgusting behaviour as well as being completely inept to a level that's hard to imagine. Ineptitude that continued by failing to investigate other possible suspects properly.



6
Involved in that they saw or knew something. There is something seriously wrong with this case

I always find it interesting that while Parky and his compadres ridicule the idea of [Name removed] and [Name removed] becoming unwittingly embroiled in a murder of their friend’s making they see nothing wrong with believing that Luke, a fourteen year old boy with no previous criminal experience, was able to commit a horrific murder, a murder where even the police said that the perpetrator would be covered in blood, without a spec of unexplained DNA on him. Not only that but managed to change his clothes, if the eyewitnesses were to be believed, at least three times in the space of around 20 minutes without anyone seeing him return to the house where he lived to retrieve clean clothes or get cleaned up. That the three witnesses who were with him when he found the body didn’t no, really, honestly didn't change their story, even though it’s obvious that they did. Astonishing!

And yet after all the subterfuge used to create an alibi he lets it slip that his mother had a fire that night. Shoddy!
7
Involved in that they saw or knew something. There is something seriously wrong with this case
Maybe they watched Mitchell commit the murder and felt guilty for not doing anything to stop him. 
8
You obviously believe they were involved (otherwise why bring them up) which means if more than one person carried out the murder then a minimum of 4 people were guilty of a murder/cover-up.

Involved in that they saw or knew something. There is something seriously wrong with this case
9
The Danger Of Nick Wallis & His “Smoking Gun”   
👇🏼
https://youtu.be/uaK8sl9wWJU?si=3zMollgDrWKdNVkk
10
I don't think they did it, but they knew something or saw something. It's interesting that those 2 were on that path between 445 and 500pm going towards Mitchell's end but they didn't see him at the exact time he would have been on it walking towards Easthouses. As we know, nobody saw him doing that walk and these 2 didn't either.

The bleach would have been put down some days after the murder on the ground where the victim was killed to stop dogs scenting blood. The dogs came from England, but it took about 10 days which would allow someone time to bleach certain areas.  As I said already I think, there was very little blood where the victim was found, she had been moved. Blood that's over 8 years old has been known to be found in soil using Luminol, you can't make blood disappear but you can stop dogs finding it by using bleach!
if they weren’t involved then a) why would they need to dispose of the moped in a hurry and b) that still leaves other(s) to leave the scene of the crime on foot allegedly covered in blood.  As for the bleach I don’t get why anyone would risk going back to the scene AFTER the body had been discovered to leave more potentially incriminating evidence to disguise blood that would have been there - to what end?  The police knew she was murdered there and that her blood would be in or around the area where she was found so - why use bleach on it? 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10